JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, (ORAL)

The petitioner/complainant, namely, Sri Radha Nath Nandy deposited a cheque of Rs.342203/- drawn on Deutsche Bank in his account with the respondent Canara Bank. The said account was in the name of “Radha Nath Nandy”. According to the bank, the cheque was not sent for clearing as the name on the cheque did not match with the name in which the account had been opened. The pay-in-slip was marked as “A/c’s name & cheque name differ” but the words “no fund” were also added in the pay-in-slip, available on page 24 of the paper-book. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum seeking payment of the cheque amount of Rs.342203/- from the bank along with compensation.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the respondent bank which interalia stated that the cheque was not placed for clearing as it was in favour of R.N. Nandy whereas bank account was in the name of Radha Nath Nandy. It was also alleged that the endorsement “no fund” was not made by the respondent bank.

3.      The District Forum vide its order dated 5.6.2015 directed as under:-

“O.P. is directed to pay the cheque amount of Rs.3,42,203/- to the complainant after maintaining all formalities within one month from the date of this order.

          O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which the O.P. shall have to pay sum of Rs.200/- per day from the date of this order till its realization, as punitive damages, which shall be deposited by the O.P. in this State Consumer Welfare Fund.”

          An appeal was preferred by the respondent bank against the order of the District Forum. The State Commission modified the order passed by the District Forum by setting aside the direction for payment of Rs.200/- per day as punitive damages. Rest of the order of passed by the District Forum was maintained.

4.      In the execution proceedings initiated by the petitioner/complainant, a direction was issued by the District Forum for depositing the cheque in order to obtain payment of Rs.342203/-. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid direction, the petitioner again approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, he is before this Commission.

5.      It would thus be seen that the cheuqe deposited by the petitioner with the respondent bank was in a name different from the name in which the bank account had been opened by him with the respondent bank. The cheque was in the name of R.N. Nandy whereas the account was in the name of Radha Nath Nandy. The respondent bank, therefore, was fully justified in not presenting the aforesaid cheque for clearing and returning the same to the complainant. Though the order of the District Forum directing payment of cheque amount of Rs.342203/- to the complainant after maintaining all formalities has become final, the complainant/petitioner is required to at least deposit a cheque of the current date, in the name of  Radha Nath Nandy, in order to obtain the awarded amount of Rs.342203/- from the respondent bank. The respondent bank can thereafter send the chqeue in clearing and retain the payment received against the cheque.

6.      The complainant/petitioner is not entitled to the cheque amount of Rs.342203/- without at least depositing the valid cheque of that amount in the name of Radha Nath Nandy with the respondent bank. If this is not done, the bank will end up paying the money, without receiving it from the drawer of the cheque.

7.      The view taken by the State Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.